The damage done when researchers do not understand the harm reduction concept

[rothenbj]

This is the link to Paul Bergen's comments about a Cali study. Link to UC Riverside article included in commentary.

The damage done when researchers do not understand the harm reduction concept « Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

The two things that I find annoying about this "research" is that they use the term "harm reduction concept" to look at cigarettes with complex filters and genetically altered tobacco to reduce the nicotine. Haven't we known for years that reducing nicotine doesn't make cigarettes safer? They're using a term "harm reduction" for products that we know do not reduce harm and I see it popping up later in a statement such as "harm reduction products are not a safe alternative to cigarettes".

The second annoyance to this research is they have also proved that the concept of reducing nicotine levels will have health benefits but that won't stop the nicotine nazis from continuing to propagate the strategy of nicotine reduction in tobacco products.

 

[rachelcoffe]

I did some reading up on the "Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act" in the U.S. (the one President Obama signed into law last year). The legislation does give the FDA authority to (potentially) get tobacco companies to lower the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes (whether they'll exercise it is another matter). But it does not give them the authority to eliminate nicotine from tobacco cigarettes altogether.

Bizarrely enough, there's a very good case to be made that reducing the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes could amount to little more than a plan between big tobacco & the FDA to get smokers to smoke even more than now. Insane! From the LA Times:

"Take the bill's handling of nicotine. The FDA would be allowed to mandate lower nicotine levels in cigarettes but not to mandate that nicotine be eliminated from cigarettes. This political compromise accomplishes little. It has been well documented that when nicotine levels in cigarettes are reduced, smokers inhale more deeply and smoke more cigarettes in order to maintain their daily nicotine dosage. This is a phenomenon known as compensation. The catch is that because of compensation, low-nicotine cigarettes end up delivering a greater dose of tar. This leads to an increase, not a decrease, in the risk of cancer and lung disease.

In fact, the bill's entire approach to tobacco products flies in the face of what we currently know about the dangers of smoking. The FDA will be charged with regulating the safety of tobacco products, but it will only be allowed to require the reduction or elimination of some of the more than 4,000 toxins and 60 carcinogens in tobacco smoke. There is no evidence that reducing or eliminating certain constituents in tobacco smoke will reduce the health risks of smoking. In fact, several studies have shown that when you remove one harmful component, the levels of others may increase. Attempting to regulate the levels of certain constituents of tobacco smoke is an absurd approach to the tobacco problem."

And to touch briefly on the relatively harmless use of nicotine - numerous studies, physicians' groups, and more have concluded that nicotine itself (at the levels found in the average e-juice, or NRT, or tobacco - they all contain comparable levels) is no more harmful to the average person than the caffeine in our coffe. It's the means of delivery that is at issue. Deadly tobacco smoke...or clean, germ-killing PG vapour. Here's an interesting link (just one of many out there):

BBC NEWS | Health | Smokers 'need more help to quit'

The Royal College of Physicians in the UK (an impressive body); Professor Britton, who is also an expert in epidemiology at the University of Nottingham; Action on Smoking and Health and Cancer Research UK - they all agree that nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine. An attack on the nicotine in e-juice has as much validity as an attack on the caffeine in coffe.

Is anyone suggesting we outlaw coffe? (they'd better not, lol)

So take heart. The science just doesn't back up any kind of anti-vaping claim. You can't very well keep proven-deadly tobacco cigarettes legal, and proven-ineffective NRT legal...but try and put the kaibosh on the healthy, effective one (vaping). Even the most token scrutiny reveals the ludicrous hypocrisy & indefensibility of the anti-vaping camp.

Happy Vaping!

 

[rothenbj]

Goodl find on that article Rachel and good post. I wonder if that was posted when it was originally published, it's way earlier than my involvement here. Heck, thinking about that date, I'm not even sure how long ago the forum was established. Looked around a bit, but I didn't see any dates near 2007. Need to get some real old timers to let us know.

It does raise an interesting point. As much as these organizations have recognized that it's about the smoke, now they all seem so intent on insuring people don't stop smoking.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I sent the following e-mail to Prue Talbot yesterday, but haven't heard back from her. She should know better since I've sent her many e-mails about different tobacco harm reduction products and policies during the past several months. If anyone else wants to contact Prue, her e-mail address is talbot@ucr.edu

Prue:

Your most recent press release at
UCR Newsroom: Harm Reduction Cigarettes Can Be More Harmful Than Conventional Brands
contains many inaccurate statements.

There is no such thing as a "harm reduction cigarette" as you repeatedly claimed in your press release (as the health risks of all combustible cigarettes are very similar and have been well documented).

Nor have any tobacco companies introduced "harm reduction cigarettes", and doing so would violate Section 911 of the federal Family Smoking Prevention Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ031.111.pdf

Low nicotine cigarettes such as Quest 2 and Quest 3 (which may not even be on the market anymore due to lack of consumer interest) are not "harm reduction cigarettes", nor are cigarette brand names that previously included the terms "light", "ultralight", "mild" (which the FSPTCA banned from the market back in July).

I strongly urge you to issue a correction.

Have you not received the many e-mails I've sent you about tobacco harm reduction products during the past few months (ever since you published an article misrepresenting the pressure needed for inhaling e-cigarettes as a health risk)?

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 412-351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com